Hi Steve:

Thanks for you reply. Sorry to confuse, the top model was built out of MoI but using the curves and structure
built in MoI, I was trying to demonstrate that I didn't end up with a gap and that the curves were OK.

The middle surface with the curves was built on MoI but could not be joined up which was my main reason for posting.

The lower surface was to try and get some feedback from other experienced users of the best way to model a smooth
surface given those three curves.....This style of shape typically breeds the dread 'X' in the surface with bulged corners
as can be seen when you use the technique you mention.

>> The resulting surface will only be as good as the control curves.

So how might I improve this in your opinion.....the only G1 curve is the profile/split ??

--

Hi Michael,

>> Which surfacing command was used to create those pieces, I mean was it a sweep, network, something like that?
>> The likely bug that needs to be fixed is to add a bit more checking to ensure curves have been fit to the 0.001
>> tolerance properly, the refitting procedure let through a very slightly sagging fit curve in this case which is basically
>> the root of the problem

Curve network for both surfs - HTH

>> At some point I will probably be trying to overhaul the way that tolerances are used in MoI in general and try to focus
>> more on adapting the tolerance to the scale of the object instead of having it fixed at an absolute value of 0.001 .
>> I'm not quite sure how that will work yet or when I will tackle that though

I think MoI's tolerance in general is quite tight, we normally model at 0.001mm and comparing offset curves with R, I find
MoI makes quite noisy curves in comparison...

Best Rgds,